"If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors." you may be a stupid farking bigot

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.

"For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others"... " An employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual's belief or practice, or if few - or no - other people adhere to it..."and"These protections also extend to those who profess no religious beliefs."

That doesn't mean that atheists aren't or won't be discriminated against, they are and they will be. But they do have recourse to legal action when it occurs. Your boss might fire you for being an atheist but, if so (depending on the nature of the job and your contract), you can sue his ass off for violation of Section 12 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The My Little Pony Killer:GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

You're only 99% sure, yet you claim that the A answer for that question is without a doubt true.

Oh okay, GAT.

Oh he certainly could be fired for being an atheist. There's no question that there is some employer out there who would fire any employee who did not accept a religious belief. That part of it is "without a doubt true." He could be fired for having red hair or listening to gamelan music or enjoying books about dogs [Note: I have no idea if these traits apply to GAT_00]. He could be fired for anything at all.

Where GAT_00 is mistaken in the answer to question 5 is that he does in fact have legal recourse if such a violation took place.

FloydA:The My Little Pony Killer: GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

You're only 99% sure, yet you claim that the A answer for that question is without a doubt true.

Oh okay, GAT.

Oh he certainly could be fired for being an atheist. There's no question that there is some employer out there who would fire any employee who did not accept a religious belief. That part of it is "without a doubt true." He could be fired for having red hair or listening to gamelan music or enjoying books about dogs [Note: I have no idea if these traits apply to GAT_00]. He could be fired for anything at all.

Where GAT_00 is mistaken in the answer to question 5 is that he does in fact have legal recourse if such a violation took place.

He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

I think we must have read that question (and GAT_00's answer) differently.

There are some religions that do perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If GAT_00 was gay and a member of one of those gay friendly religions, s/he could get his/her commitment sanctified by his/her church, but still not have it recognized as a marriage.

That's still the case in most states (even here, until November).

(GAT_00, I don't mean to be talking about you here. If I'm misrepresenting your point, please correct me.)

The My Little Pony Killer:He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

friday13:The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

somedude210:I'd make a comment about being discriminated against as a former Catholic, now Buddhist but for the life of me, I can't think of a single instance. Most just go "oh? You're Buddhist? How interesting"

Have you ever been offended when you say "Make me one with everything" and the guy taking your order doesn't laugh?

sprawl15:somedude210: I'd make a comment about being discriminated against as a former Catholic, now Buddhist but for the life of me, I can't think of a single instance. Most just go "oh? You're Buddhist? How interesting"

Have you ever been offended when you say "Make me one with everything" and the guy taking your order doesn't laugh?

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Just pick A or B huh?

So either my religious liberties are at risk, or I'm a religious oppressor? Those are the two possibilities?

Reverend Emily Heath's main point that the religious right have for too long tried to falsely equate what they consider to be their God-given right to persecute other people with other people trying to oppress them was well made.

The right to bully gay kids.The right to harass other religions.The right to prevent gay marriage.The right to control women's bodies.The right to force religious teachings into science class.

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Just pick A or B huh?

So either my religious liberties are at risk, or I'm a religious oppressor? Those are the two possibilities?

jigger:Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

The right originally claimed it was religious intolerance to force Catholic organizations to pay for birth control and that it was proof Obama was pushing an anti-religious agenda. It wasn't and the whole debate was so embarrassing for them they retreated to "well, I just don't want my taxes paying for somebody else!" even though that wasn't the case either.

jigger:Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

Because it's obvious that if you have a uterus then you aren't allowed full health care. NOT YOURS! So it's ok for employers to enforce their religious choices on their employees, because girlz don't count.

He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

I think we must have read that question (and GAT_00's answer) differently.

There are some religions that do perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If GAT_00 was gay and a member of one of those gay friendly religions, s/he could get his/her commitment sanctified by his/her church, but still not have it recognized as a marriage.

That's still the case in most states (even here, until November).

(GAT_00, I don't mean to be talking about you here. If I'm misrepresenting your point, please correct me.)

I was more speaking in general that if I was gay and wanted to marry someone, I couldn't marry them. The objections to that are solely religious. That was the logic behind that.

FloydA:I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.

At will state. I can be fired for being an atheist and nothing would happen.

odinsposse:jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

The right originally claimed it was religious intolerance to force Catholic organizations to pay for birth control and that it was proof Obama was pushing an anti-religious agenda. It wasn't and the whole debate was so embarrassing for them they retreated to "well, I just don't want my taxes paying for somebody else!" even though that wasn't the case either.

The birth control issue is whatever Republicans want it to be. It's proof that Obama hates men. Or religion, or loves over regulating, or hates babies.

darknys:friday13: The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

That, and FloydA is right here.

Those are called cilia.

i could have said that, but then I would have confused half the people here.

maddogdelta:jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

Because it's obvious that if you have a uterus then you aren't allowed full health care. NOT YOURS! So it's ok for employers to enforce their religious choices on their employees, because girlz don't count.

jigger:Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

No, it was about people who were already paying for health insurance and who wanted their BC pills to be covered like any other prescription and their insurers who also wanted that to be the case (because it ultimately saves them money) both being thwarted by religious groups trying to force their illogical, immoral religious beliefs down everyone's else's throat.

/100th person to respond to that troll gets their pick of any plush toy from the upper rack!

The My Little Pony Killer:He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Get out a little more. The only wedding I've been to between people of the same gender was a Christian wedding.

quatchi:jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

No, it was about people who were already paying for health insurance and who wanted their BC pills to be covered like any other prescription and their insurers who also wanted that to be the case (because it ultimately saves them money) both being thwarted by religious groups trying to force their illogical, immoral religious beliefs down everyone's else's throat.

/100th person to respond to that troll gets their pick of any plush toy from the upper rack!

prior to the compromise, that's what it was about. Who was going to pay for the coverage of BC.

GAT_00:I was more speaking in general that if I was gay and wanted to marry someone, I couldn't marry them. The objections to that are solely religious. That was the logic behind that.

Understood.

FloydA: I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.

At will state. I can be fired for being an atheist and nothing would happen.

Hmmm. Arguable. It's likely (depending on the judge and jury) that your employer could win if you chose to bring a suit (c.f. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. and Visser v. Packer Engineering Associates, Inc.), because the McDonnell Douglas formula for assigning burden of proof has basically been abandoned.

Legally, your employer cannot fire you for being an atheist, but since Visser, all your employer has to do is claim that he's an asshole and doesn't like you personally, and it's now up to you to prove that the firing was because of religious discrimination.

So, yeah, you have legal recourse, just not necessarily effective legal recourse. In practice, I can understand that it works out the same.

(The "at will" doctrine really needs to go. It's a perversion of justice, IMO.)(Note: I am not a lawyer, so the above might be complete poppycock.)

Atheism is not a faith. There is no code. It is simply the dismissal of organized religion.

However, protection of religious freedom is not limited to those who believe in religion, but also to those who do not. It is a fundamental pillar of our country that our differences should not be excluded but included.